Are there any scientists in here other than Wesley? Thus far it seems, I'm only getting posts (with a couple exceptions, maybe) from religionists from whom I glean I'm offending by attempting to discuss thought with them.....

Never met so many religionists on what I thought was a science forum...oh well...

Anything to get out of having to actually explain or do, huh?

That's OK. We get that a lot. We totally understand that you are incapable of supporting your claims. We understand that you are incapable of explaining your notions, assumptions, and 'calculations'.

We also understand that really don't understand what we're talking about. We understand that you don't know what evidence is and how science actually works.

We don't like it, but we understand it.

Now, you have numerous questions and many, many requests for a calculation to be done. You've said that you've done so many times, but refuse to create a hyperlink to a place that has such information. You refuse to perform such measurements or calculations here for us. You refuse to even explain how one would begin to gather the information needed for such an event.

Several people (including myself) have provided you with information (not meaning, but information) in order that you calculate or measure CSI. You have not done so.

You can't identify strings with CSI or without CSI without being told what the function of those strings are. You "looked" at my list of numbers and decided that they were random. You didn't calculate the CSI of those numbers to determine if an intelligence was involved in creating them.

There is an RNA sequence a few posts above this, go ahead, determine the CSI of that RNA sequence. You won't do it. We all know you won't do it. You are smart enough to realize that it's a trap.

If you guess wrong, then your entire worldview about ID and CSI and the like will come crashing down around your ears. You can't stomach that idea. If you guess right (and it will be a guess), then you probably think (with good reason) that I have an ace up my sleeve about that particular sequence. You don't know what it is, but you know it's a trap.

And that's only one reason that ID is utterly without value. You can't afford to actually do anything with it, because deep down, you know the entire concept is riddled with error, inconsistency, and crap. You know you will be challenged, that's how science works. But you can't let yourself be pinned on something because you know that science and math actually do work and ID doesn't.

So, again, you have a lot of fundamental errors in your work so far. You have a lot of logical fallacies in your work so far. You claim that analogies are equivalent to calculations. You think that there are only two choices (random or designed). You think that information = meaning.

So, anytime you would like to actually do something, let me know. Or you can keep on exposing your utter and complete ignorance by ignoring what we are asking and continuing your 'insults' (or whatever they are) instead of actually talking to us.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the ďnĒ th power. And ďnĒ is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Sorry your maths is way off... ever study statistics? You should look into that before doing probability calculations.

The odds against †a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the ďnĒ the power. Yes... and what happened to all the other variables? did the cat eat 'em?

One of the fundamental variables is the number of amino acids evolved. I.e. how many acids are singularly playing the game. It's all fine and dandy to say that it's very hard to win the lottery but if your chances of winning are 1:1 million you can bet that if one million people play someone's going to win. What you have to ask yourself is how many amino acids can fit in a square meter of primal pond then ask yourself how many cubic kilometres of pond you have.

The second variable is time. How many attempts at combining are being played per second and how much time do they have to hit a meaningful combination... you haven't put this in your equation.

Third you don't need to get the complete sequence in the first shot you could have a cumulative sequence which would mean that you donít reset the game if say on first time you get a string of 5 amino acids.

Now why don't you rewrite your math and add these variables in...

He would also have to include quite a bit of additional work because not all amino acids are equally likely to bond with a given amino acid. So he's got about n!/(r!(n-r)!) = (21*20)/2 =210 reactions he needs to separately consider in his dumbass 'calculation'.

Get to work Jerry! Lots of fake science to keep you busy. When you're done you should submit it to PCID. After the Kitzmiller trial, for some reason they ran out of 'research' to publish. Damnedest thing I've ever seen. Almost like it wasn't actual research, but propaganda that was suddenly useless....

I just walked you through the analogy of the archer along with how specificity is calculated....how can you guys not grasp that?

The archer analogy is terrible! Why? Because it's erroneous. First, the archer analogy doesn't even offer a scenario in which intelligence is required, so it fails outright. But even as a rebuttal to evolution it's inane because it relies on the fallacy of large numbers and the failure to take "genetic memory" (heredity) into account. The fact is, successful biological compounds are remembered; the archer's successful hits are not. Bottom line, your concept thus far makes no sense because too much of it is erroneous.

†

Quote

What is it you wish me to do, I've defined it precisely and showed the thread in very simplistic terms how to use it and what people do with it....It's a very simple concept using high school mathematics (or lower).

You may think you've defined it precisely, but you are wholly mistaken on that count. Your analogies are fallacious and do not in fact reflect reality. To make matters worse, you've yet to provide any substantiation for the base claims - that you can actually calculate CSI. Thus far, I can only conclude that this "CSI" has no value to anything, never mind just science.

Well, at least you are responding with intelligence and civility........

1) The archer scenario shows the specificity of the information of arrows hitting a target. It was the FIRST analogy used, to my knowledge, to show the initiator's intentions when he proposed the concept of CSI.

Forget the complexity factor in the term....that's what you people seem hung up on...the way you are viewing complexity in the term: complex specified information is just muddling your understanding of the entire concept because it is the specificity that is calculated.

And can you get off the "rebuttle to evolution", genetic memory, biological compounds, the fact that some seem to think I'm calculating the return of Jesus or maybe that Moses wore sideburns? LOL...I never even mentioned any of that..I'm just attempting to get you guys to understand what the heck you are talking about on the basal level. Then maybe we can expand on it.

I also wonder what you are discussing in the other threads when you throw around these big words...I would wager you don't know what any of the other terms mean either.

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing out meaningless data...I gave you actual calculations...where are all those mathematicians that were crowding that guy in another post....LOL...I calculated CSI in an organism. To attempt to pretend I didn't is simply intellectual dishonesty although I will withhold judgement on the latter for another time..

1) The archer scenario shows the specificity of the information of arrows hitting a target. It was the FIRST analogy used, to my knowledge, to show the initiator's intentions when he proposed the concept of CSI.

You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.

Quote

And can you get off the "rebuttle to evolution", genetic memory, biological compounds...

No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.

Quote

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing out meaningless data...I gave you actual calculations...where are all those mathematicians that were crowding that guy in another post....LOL...I calculated CSI in an organism. To attempt to pretend I didn't is simply intellectual dishonesty although I will withhold judgement on the latter for another time.

Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Ok, so... †those long stretches of repeats, those all count as individual bits, right?

What's the CSI of one gram of table salt?

You know, if you measured the chances of each particular phosphorus atom ending up in my DNA, you'd get a way bigger number, why not use that instead? Or the chances of my parents meeting?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

1) The archer scenario shows the specificity of the information of arrows hitting a target. It was the FIRST analogy used, to my knowledge, to show the initiator's intentions when he proposed the concept of CSI.

You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.

Quote

And can you get off the "rebuttle to evolution", genetic memory, biological compounds...

No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.

Quote

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing out meaningless data...I gave you actual calculations...where are all those mathematicians that were crowding that guy in another post....LOL...I calculated CSI in an organism. To attempt to pretend I didn't is simply intellectual dishonesty although I will withhold judgement on the latter for another time.

Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.

I also don't see a calculation of the 'CSI' of an organism. I just see some unsubstantiated assertions about probabilities and other irrelevant stuff, and avoidance of relevant questions.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,

Random garbage doesn't have any CSI

Meaningful language does have CSI

Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.Character string A:

Language is not REALLY germain to CSI either unless we are somehow relating language to matter/energy....

Hold it.Language is "not REALLY germain" to something that, according to you, "must communicate"? How in the name of Klono's curving carballoy claws can language NOT be "germain" to anything for which "communication" is necessary?Do you actually read any of the verbiage you type, Jerry?

Quote

And yes, we can distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into it's specificity....No specificity....no CSI...

Yes, and one of those two strings is very specific indeed, being that it's an encrypted version of a particular English text. So according to this "honing into its specificity" schtick, yes, a CSI-detecting protocol should be able to distinguish between encrypted text and random garbage.So. Since you assert that you are, indeed, able to "distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity", would you care to actually, like, you know, distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity? By, let us say, identifying which of two apparently-random strings is, in fact, not random at all, but, rather, is encrypted text?

Quote

The rest of that post pretty much shows a lack of understanding of the CSI concept... But you admit that up front and it's OK as I'm used to it......This will hopefully become clearer as we progress.

Since language is, apparently, "not REALLY germain" to this CSI thingie that "must communicate"Ö and since you didn't even pretend to use this CSI thingie to determine which of the two strings was the encrypted textÖ I strongly doubt that further discussion will arrive at any outcome even vaguely reminiscent of 'clearer'. Except perhaps in the sense that it will become increasingly more clear that you ain't got nothin' but bullshitÖ

Comparing the genome to computer data storage. In order to represent a DNA sequence on a computer, we need to be able to represent all 4 base pair possibilities in a binary format (0 and 1). These 0 and 1 bits are usually grouped together to form a larger unit, with the smallest being a ďbyteĒ that represents 8 bits. We can denote each base pair using a minimum of 2 bits, which yields 4 different bit combinations (00, 01, 10, and 11). †Each 2-bit combination would represent one DNA base pair. †A single byte (or 8 bits) can represent 4 DNA base pairs. †In order to represent the entire diploid human genome in terms of bytes, we can perform the following calculations:

is 1.5 Gigabytes more than 500 bits? Then why would we want to go any further than this as you already have the answer before you start.

ANY organism will be over 500 bits.[/quote]Hello everyone, I've been a lurker here for a few years now and I just have to respond because this could be historical stuff.

I want to make sure I understand you correctly here, Jerry Don Bauer, because according to what I have quoted, you seem to be saying that the quantity of information in a string of symbols is equal to the length of the string divided by the number of possible symbols at each locus? As in the information content is measured in bits and is thus proportional to the length of the sequence?

You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.

There is NO assumptions and it readily demonstrates specificity in a manner that is easily calculated. As the archer's chances of hitting an assigned target decreases, specificity increases...that is what specificity IS.....I'm just trying to show what it is at this point as no one on here seems to know.

It DOESN'T say anything about specificity being required for anything and indeed specificity is not even present in some systems. I have never hinted otherwise.

In fact, I've yet to be presented anything by the posters in here as an example that contained specificity to consider to begin with...that's why I've reverted to some middle school level examples here...

Quote

No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.

I haven't MADE any claims....if you think I have, please link to them and I will clarify. I'm trying to get everyone on the same page as to what CSI even IS before we discuss it. †It's not calculations of Jesus coming, that you did or didn't magically morph from an ape, that Darwinsim is science or a crock or anything similar. It's just very simple statistics.

Quote

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.

Well, in response to several accusations (out of ignorance, I suppose) I was challenged to show how one would go about calculating the CSI of living tissue and I simply posted some of my own writings:

"The smallest known bacteria Iím aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I donít think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely ďracemized.Ē The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of ďright-handedĒ and ďleft-handedĒ molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. Thatís not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. Thatís not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, letís look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the ďnĒ th power. And ďnĒ is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borelís Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembskiís UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Thatís one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds donít change."

And why do you have trouble defining CSI? It is a well defined concept of modern ID thought.... is it information that calculates out above the upper probability bound? Is it specified information? Then, if it is both complex and specified it is therefore CSI...

Since you seem to think CSI is, in fact, a well-defined concept, Jerry, I have a question for you. But before I ask my question, I have to explain a bit of background.Now, I don't pretend to be fully au courant with all the niceties of this CSI thingie, but if my limited understanding is correct,

Random garbage doesn't have any CSI

Meaningful language does have CSI

Converting a statement from one format to another (as, for instance, using an encryption algorithm to make a meaningful statement difficult to read) does not alter the statement's CSI.

So if this CSI thingie genuinely is the sure-fire Design-detection tool which you ID-pushers assert it to be, it seems to me that you should be able to use it to distinguish random garbage from meaningful text that only appears to be random garbage.

Background explained. Here's the question:

Which of the following character strings, String A or String B, is the encrypted text, and which is the garbage? And please show your work, so we know you're not just guessing.Character string A:

Language is not REALLY germain to CSI either unless we are somehow relating language to matter/energy....

Hold it.Language is "not REALLY germain" to something that, according to you, "must communicate"? How in the name of Klono's curving carballoy claws can language NOT be "germain" to anything for which "communication" is necessary?Do you actually read any of the verbiage you type, Jerry?

†

Quote

And yes, we can distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into it's specificity....No specificity....no CSI...

Yes, and one of those two strings is very specific indeed, being that it's an encrypted version of a particular English text. So according to this "honing into its specificity" schtick, yes, a CSI-detecting protocol should be able to distinguish between encrypted text and random garbage.So. Since you assert that you are, indeed, able to "distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity", would you care to actually, like, you know, distinguish meaningful information from garbage by honing into its specificity? By, let us say, identifying which of two apparently-random strings is, in fact, not random at all, but, rather, is encrypted text?

†

Quote

The rest of that post pretty much shows a lack of understanding of the CSI concept... But you admit that up front and it's OK as I'm used to it......This will hopefully become clearer as we progress.

Since language is, apparently, "not REALLY germain" to this CSI thingie that "must communicate"Ö and since you didn't even pretend to use this CSI thingie to determine which of the two strings was the encrypted textÖ I strongly doubt that further discussion will arrive at any outcome even vaguely reminiscent of 'clearer'. Except perhaps in the sense that it will become increasingly more clear that you ain't got nothin' but bullshitÖ

OK stop.........Do you really think that probability statistics apply to words we use? How would one go about calculating this? There is NO specificity in a string of words.......how would the use of previous words dictate the probable origin or use of future ones?

CSI, as I have previously pointed out, deals with matter/energy and its information content....What got you off into languages?

[snip]OK stop.........Do you really think that probability statistics apply to words we use? How would one go about calculating this? There is NO specificity in a string of words.......how would the use of previous words dictate the probable origin or use of future ones?

CSI, as I have previously pointed out, deals with matter/energy and its information content....What got you off into languages?

Hello everyone, I've been a lurker here for a few years now and I just have to respond because this could be historical stuff.

Welcome...I do tend to bring em out of the back bleachers...*wink*

Quote

I want to make sure I understand you correctly here, Jerry Don Bauer, because according to what I have quoted, you seem to be saying that the quantity of information in a string of symbols is equal to the length of the string divided by the number of possible symbols at each locus? As in the information content is measured in bits and is thus proportional to the length of the sequence?

No...not quite right. While I'm comfortable discussing information theory and often do (and we may get there), I haven't really up to this point other than a brief mention of bits courtesy of Claude Shannon.

We are discussing Complex Specified Information and what makes certain information complex, or not and/or specified or not.

This has little to do with the length of anything or the amount of loci it harbors.

Quote

You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?

You are referring to a link I referrenced. The purpose of that link was to show that even a genome contains much more information than the 500 bits upper probability boundary. Therefore, an entire organism most certainly would be over 500 bits and therefore CSI.....

That was all I was pointing out.....I certainly did not want to get into genomic entropy and the like at this point.

Ok, so... †those long stretches of repeats, those all count as individual bits, right?

What's the CSI of one gram of table salt?

You know, if you measured the chances of each particular phosphorus atom ending up in my DNA, you'd get a way bigger number, why not use that instead? Or the chances of my parents meeting?

There is NO specificity in a gram of table salts...you guys are just lost.....*grin*

Quote

CSI: Complex and specified information that when the odds for its existence are calculated and those odds exceed the UPB (upper probability boundary), could not occur by chance.

Then it should be easy for you to show that one gram of salt does not meet this criterion.

To show that, you must know the concentration of the original chemicals, ambient temperature, energy of reaction, dilution, and so on.

Clearly, not a realistic expectation.

Then you have to know the same conditions for whatever it is that you claim has CSI.

Again, clearly not a realistic expectation.

So we're back to "Wow, that sure looks complicated, must be designed."

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

I'm doing some work right now and one of the things I had to do was compute the escape velocity for the asteroid Vesta4. So, I got the mean radius and the approximate mass and ended up with an escape velocity of 363 and change m/s. I thought, that's way to high, I must have made a mistake.

I figured and a looked up G and verified it. I verified the equation I was using. I got some other people to check my math and they agreed with me.

We fussed on this for three days.

Then, I got a bright idea. I looked up the escape velocity for Vesta. Amazingly, NASA recently sent a mission there. Turns out, the math was right... it was my thinking that was wrong.

The moral of the story is that thinking can be wrong. So, why don't you give us the formulas so we can actually do the math.

Oh wait, you can't do that because we all know IT DOESN'T EXIST.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Okay, either you have not explained it clearly, or I misunderstood you.

Perhaps you meant there is no complexity in salt, because it is most definitely specified, not just any molecules will do.

Quote

CSI: Complex and specified information that when the odds for its existence are calculated and those odds exceed the UPB (upper probability boundary), could not occur by chance.

So, CSI only applies to organic chemistry, then?

Help me out here.

Which organic molecules have CSI and which do not?

Is CSI just calcuated by the size of the genome? (Do replication errors affect CSI? Why or why not?) Or do proteins show CSI, too? What about the carbohydrates? †Long chain polymers? †Membranes?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

How do you know that? What did you measure/analyze in salt that enabled you to arrive at your conclusion?

I notice that you said "is not CSI" rather than has no CSI. Is that wording significant, and does it matter if it's a "pile of salt" versus a gram of table salt?

What if the salt (whether 'table' or otherwise) is in an organism? Would that have any effect on whether the salt has any CSI? And would the amount of salt in an organism affect the amount of CSI in the organism?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?

You are referring to a link I referrenced. The purpose of that link was to show that even a genome contains much more information than the 500 bits upper probability boundary. Therefore, an entire organism most certainly would be over 500 bits and therefore CSI.....

That was all I was pointing out.....I certainly did not want to get into genomic entropy and the like at this point.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)

We are discussing Complex Specified Information and what makes certain information complex, or not and/or specified or not.

This has little to do with the length of anything or the amount of loci it harbors.

Quote

You refer to the example of a 6 billion base-pair diploid genome, divided by the number of possibilities pr site (4):

In other words, the information content of a sequence of DNA, for example 12 base-pairs in length, AUGAATAUGTTA, is equal to 12 base pairs x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 3 bytes.

Am I correct in my understanding here?

You are referring to a link I referrenced. The purpose of that link was to show that even a genome contains much more information than the 500 bits upper probability boundary. Therefore, an entire organism most certainly would be over 500 bits and therefore CSI.....

Okay, fair enough, I think I understand. But just to be sure, you agree the quantity of information in the genome there is 1.5 gigabytes? Not CSI, not Entropy, just 1.5 gigabytes of information, and 1.5 gigabytes is more than 500 bits(and 500 bits would be the bound above with the quantity of information would qualify as being CSI). Right?

If my understanding is not correct, could you clarify: A): How to calculate the quantity of information in an arbitrary string of DNA, for example?

You can use any stretch of DNA you want, like a real world promoter sequence(or mRNA transcript or whatever you like), or just use a small random string for the purpose, like the one I supplied. Anything is fine with me, I just want to make sure that we agree on how to calculate the quantity of information in a string of symbols, like DNA, in bytes.

I understand that the quantity itself is not what makes it Complex or Specified. I just want to make sure we agree on how to calculate the quantity.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)

That was all I was pointing out.....I certainly did not want to get into genomic entropy and the like at this point.

That's absolutely fine with me, we don't have to delve into entropy or anything. I just want to reach an agreement on the basics, like how to calculate information quantity in stretches of DNA.

That's why I brought up the example you quoted earlier, because you seemed to be using a method that corresponded to length of string divided by number of symbols and reporting the result in bytes.

If this is not how you would calculate information content in a string of symbols, how else? Give an example and I would be most grateful.

I'm doing some work right now and one of the things I had to do was compute the escape velocity for the asteroid Vesta4. †So, I got the mean radius and the approximate mass and ended up with an escape velocity of 363 and change m/s. †I thought, that's way to high, I must have made a mistake.

I figured and a looked up G and verified it. †I verified the equation I was using. †I got some other people to check my math and they agreed with me. †

We fussed on this for three days.

Then, I got a bright idea. †I looked up the escape velocity for Vesta. †Amazingly, NASA recently sent a mission there. †Turns out, the math was right... it was my thinking that was wrong.

The moral of the story is that thinking can be wrong. †So, why don't you give us the formulas so we can actually do the math.

Oh wait, you can't do that because we all know IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Again...A post that shows you are simply lost in this discussion...the formulas to what? We are not dealing with anything that uses formulas.

And WHAT doesn't exist, probablility mathematics? If you think this you might consider another vocation....

I'm doing some work right now and one of the things I had to do was compute the escape velocity for the asteroid Vesta4. †So, I got the mean radius and the approximate mass and ended up with an escape velocity of 363 and change m/s. †I thought, that's way to high, I must have made a mistake.

I figured and a looked up G and verified it. †I verified the equation I was using. †I got some other people to check my math and they agreed with me. †

We fussed on this for three days.

Then, I got a bright idea. †I looked up the escape velocity for Vesta. †Amazingly, NASA recently sent a mission there. †Turns out, the math was right... it was my thinking that was wrong.

The moral of the story is that thinking can be wrong. †So, why don't you give us the formulas so we can actually do the math.

Oh wait, you can't do that because we all know IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Again...A post that shows you are simply lost in this discussion...the formulas to what? We are not dealing with anything that uses formulas.

And WHAT doesn't exist, probablility mathematics? If you think this you might consider another vocation....

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

You're missing the point Jerry. The analogy fails because it doesn't actually demonstrate a requirement of specificity. There in lies the problem. It's basically a circular analogy - it relies upon the assumption of specificity to try to show that specificity is required.

There is NO assumptions and it readily demonstrates specificity in a manner that is easily calculated. As the archer's chances of hitting an assigned target decreases, specificity increases...that is what specificity IS.....I'm just trying to show what it is at this point as no one on here seems to know.

It DOESN'T say anything about specificity being required for anything and indeed specificity is not even present in some systems. I have never hinted otherwise.

In fact, I've yet to be presented anything by the posters in here as an example that contained specificity to consider to begin with...that's why I've reverted to some middle school level examples here...

†

Quote

No, I can't. You see, those things are part of the reason your claims are erroneous.

I haven't MADE any claims....if you think I have, please link to them and I will clarify. I'm trying to get everyone on the same page as to what CSI even IS before we discuss it. †It's not calculations of Jesus coming, that you did or didn't magically morph from an ape, that Darwinsim is science or a crock or anything similar. It's just very simple statistics.

†

Quote

As to your accusation that that I'm just throwing Sorry Jerry, but I don't see it. I've gone back through the thread and see nothing that even remotely looks like a calculation of the CSI of an organism. Feel free to reference the specific calculation in your response.

Well, in response to several accusations (out of ignorance, I suppose) I was challenged to show how one would go about calculating the CSI of living tissue and I simply posted some of my own writings:

"The smallest known bacteria Iím aware of consists of around 500 proteins but I donít think anyone would disagree with me that I am safe in using a 100 protein scenario in order to form an organism that could remotely be called life.

Proteins from which all of life is based are formed from amino acids. And these proteins are usually chains of from 50 to 50,000 amino acids.

Chemist, Stanley Miller showed long ago that under the correct conditions we can create amino acids in a beaker.

A chirality problem exists in that they come out completely ďracemized.Ē The amino acids produced by Miller consisted of equal amounts of ďright-handedĒ and ďleft-handedĒ molecules. The atoms that react to form amino acids bond together into cork-screw shapes--these cork-screws can curve to the right (right-handed) or to the left (left-handed). But a useable protein for life has to be composed entirely of left-handed molecules.

So, when an amino acid adds itself to a protein chain, the odds are one in two that it will be left-handed. Thatís not a big deal if the protein chain is extremely short--say three amino acids long. Our probability would be one chance in 2 to the 3rd power or 1:8. Thatís not bad odds for this type of thing.

So, letís look at this primeval ooze from which that first protist popped and we are going to surmise that this ooze was racemized amino acids that had occurred naturally.

The odds against assembling a protein chain consisting of only left-handed amino acids by chance is 2 to the ďnĒ th power. And ďnĒ is the number of attached amino acids in the protein. So its not difficult to calculate that the odds against assembling a useable protein of only 250 left-handed amino acids from a racemized mixture is one chance in 2 to the 250th power. This is about 1 chance in 10 to the 74th power.

Well shoot, we are already past the Borelís Law barrier with one tiny protein and we are nowhere near our organism. It would only take one more to catch up with Dembskiís UPB.

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

These were designed.

To calculate the organism, we have to multiply together the odds of each one of our amino acids. When we do we come out with a 1:10^7400 chance that this tiny, highly unrealistic and overly simplistic organism could ever form. These are staggering odds that could not occur in reality.

Now we can see why some Idists calculate that the odds against a fully functioning, much more complex human cell occurring by chance is one chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power. Thatís one hundred billion zeroes. Us computer geeks can think of it as a 100 gigabyte hard drive full of nothing but zeroes.

And whether or not this cell forms one step at a time, or all at once, these odds donít change."

Actually, you've "MADE" many claims, including "These were designed."

Deliberately designed things require a designer. Who or what is the designer? Where, when, and how did the alleged designer design whatever it allegedly designed? What all did it design and what didn't it design? And how did the things it didn't design come about?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

And some of the proteins found in nature are 50,000 chained amino acids. The odds of assembling a protein that long are 1:10^15,000

In one step. You realise no-one is saying it happens in one step? Or even two.

†

Quote

These were designed.

How long does it take a designer to determine that this specific version of the protein from the 1:10^15,000 possibilities at its disposal had the properties desired, using only the power of thought? Or even a rilly big computer?

--------------SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like ‚ÄúI thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,‚ÄĚ you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Dang Jerry. Then what's the point of a MATHEMATICIAN inventing the concept eh?

This is hilarious.

I notice that you are running as fast as you can to avoid doing anything with the RNA sequence I provided. Why is that?

Why won't you just see if it has CSI or not. Just look at it, that's all you have to do. After all, "There's no formula" or anything that would tell us if there are 500 bits of information or anything like that.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I didn't even have to actually bring out the big guns. He just walked right out and admitted it. This is awesome.

BTW: Now is when you start backpedaling and start talking about how you and others have calculated CSI before.

Oh wait, to calculate something, you need a FORMULA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BTW: My vocation is just fine thank you. Part of my job is to analyze statistical data. Just a part, most of the rest is science content. I do this just for the lulz.

I think this may go on my blog. An ardent ID defender admits that there is no formula to calculate CSI. What will Dembski say? Oh yeah, he doesn't have one either...

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.